ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for predicting postoperative venous thromboembolism in esophageal cancer.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretable Machine Learning for Predicting Suboptimal 12-Month Growth Response to Recombinant Human Growth Hormone in Children with Idiopathic Short Stature: A Dual-Center External Validation Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prediction of Ascending Aortic Dilation and Analysis of Influencing Factors in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Patients Using an Explainable Machine Learning Model.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk prediction model specifically for patients with esophageal cancer, using machine learning techniques to enhance clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.
methodsEight machine learning models-Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Neural Network (NN), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), AdaBoost, and Decision Tree-were constructed and rigorously evaluated. Model performance was assessed using the Brier score, calibration slope, F1 score, Youden index, the area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy (ACC). Decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curves were employed to evaluate clinical utility, while Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) plots were used to enhance model interpretability.
resultsThe study included 1595 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, of whom 407 (25.52%) developed VTE during the study period. The models were ranked based on several metrics, with GBM achieving the highest overall score of 44. A Brier score of 0.151, a calibration slope of 1.031, an F1 score of 0.827, a Youden index of 0.466, an AUC of 0.797, and an ACC of 0.757 were obtained. Key predictors included D-dimer and Lymphocyte Count (LYM). SHAP analysis provided valuable insights into the relative contribution of each predictor to the model's risk assessment.
conclusionThis study established a robust VTE risk prediction model using GBM, demonstrating high accuracy and clinical applicability for patients with esophageal cancer. The integration of advanced machine learning techniques into clinical practice highlights the potential to reduce VTE-related morbidity and mortality in high-risk patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.